No spoilers, just head over to his house and drink it all. Its a bit lengthy so grab your favorite beverage and enjoy a fascinating bit of history and the skill sets brought to the table to handle a pretty impressive problem.

Once you've done that then come back here and check out my modest proposal.

You back?

Ok, then check this out.

My modest proposal...specialization among allies!

Have you noticed something when it comes to "interoperability" between the US and our allies? It seems (and I'm not sure if we're pushing the idea or if its a desire on their part) that instead of making sure that each country (let's use NATO as an example) compliments our capabilities, they instead try and match them.

I believe, and I've tried to find it but can't, that at one time our allies had specialization. The Brits were masters at low level attacks in their Tornadoes and were tasked with going after enemy air fields. The Nordic countries had littoral combat down pat and could properly engage conventional subs with ease.

The Germans were armored warfare wizards (still don't know if that was from reputation or actual ability) and so on and so forth.

The action at the port of Umm Oasr stands on its own. The Aussies and Brits were rockstars and the USMC provided security for the operation.

Fast forward to today in the Pacific.

Wouldn't it make more sense for our allies to take on a sizable portion of the mine clearance role? Maybe the idea of having them focus on anti-sub work or even destruction of small missile boats?

It would allow the US Navy and Marine Corps to concentrate on the "high end" portion of combat without being crippled by the specialized functions that ARE EXTREMELY NECESSARY to have but don't get the attention they need in our force.